5150 Involuntary Detention Training Manual - San Francisco ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Plan Lethality Availability Illness Depression Previous Attempts Alone Loss Substance Abuse P.L.A.I.D. P.A.L.S <strong>San</strong> <strong>Francisco</strong> Suicide Prevention Is there one? Is it lethal? Can they die? Is there a means to carry out the plan? Is a mental or physical illness present? Is it present or is there is history? How many? How recent? Is the person alone now? Is there a support system? Recent death, loss of relationship or job Drugs, alcohol, medicines? Current/Chronic 34
TARASOFF v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Supreme Court of California, 1976 Facts: Prosenjit Poddar, an Indian graduate student studying naval architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, started to date a fellow student named Tatiana Tarasoff. He kissed her a few times and felt he had a special relationship with her. He was totally unfamiliar with American mores and had never had a date before. He felt betrayed when Tatiana flaunted her relationships with other men. Because of his depression he went to a psychologist, Dr. Moore, at the University Health Service. He revealed his intention to get a gun and shoot Tatiana Tarasoff. Dr. Moore sent a letter to the campus police requesting them to take Poddar to a psychiatric hospital. The campus police interviewed Mr. Poddar, but he convinced them that he was not dangerous. They released him on the promise that he would stay away from Ms. Tarasoff. When the Health Service psychiatrist in charge returned from vacation, he directed that the letter to the police be destroyed and no further action taken. Mr. Poddar moved in with Tatiana’s brother over the summer while Tatiana was visiting her aunt in Brazil. When Tatiana returned, Mr. Poddar stalked her and stabbed her to death. The parents of Tatiana sued the campus police, Health Service employees, and Regents of the University of California for failing to warn them that their daughter was in danger. The trial court dismissed the case because it said there was no cause of action. Before Tarasoff, a doctor had a duty to a patient, but not to a third party. The Appeals Court supported the dismissal. An appeal was taken to the California Supreme Court. In 1974, the California Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision. The Court held that a therapist bears a duty to use reasonable care to give threatened persons such warnings as are essential to avert foreseeable danger arising from a patient’s condition. This is known as the Tarasoff I decision. The Tarasoff I decision meant that the trial court was instructed to hear the lawsuit against the police and various employees of the University of California. Due to great uproar among psychiatrists and policemen, the California Supreme Court took the very unusual step of rehearing the same case in 1976. The decision (this case) came to be known as Tarasoff II. Holding: “When a therapist determines, or pursuant tot he standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. The discharge of this duty may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps. Thus, it may call for him to warn the intended victim, to notify the police, or to take whatever steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.” Reasoning: The Court quoted as precedent that doctors have been held liable for negligent failure to diagnose a contagious disease or failing to warn family members of it. The defendants contended through amice briefs, including an IPA brief, that psychiatrists were unable to accurately predict violence. The Court replied that they did not require therapists to render a perfect performance, “but only to exercise that reasonable degree of skilled care ordinarily possessed by members of their profession under similar circumstances.” Proof, aided 35
Page 1 and 2: 5150 Involuntary Detention Training
Page 3 and 4: EMERGENCY From your cell phone in S
Page 5 and 6: LANTERMAN - PETRIS - SHORT ACT (LPS
Page 7 and 8: GOOD CAUSE FOR DENIAL OF RIGHTS The
Page 9 and 10: • In case of an emergency defined
Page 11 and 12: Notification of Licensed Independen
Page 13 and 14: ALSO PROVIDES: The right to be free
Page 15 and 16: The professional detaining the pers
Page 17 and 18: LEGAL STATUS A. Voluntary Patients
Page 19 and 20: mental disorder and dangerousness o
Page 21 and 22: the individual is receiving medicat
Page 23 and 24: C. Conservatorship • The person h
Page 25 and 26: HOW TO WRITE A “5150” 23
Page 27 and 28: BASIC EXAMPLE THE ORIGINAL MUST FOL
Page 29 and 30: State of California - Health and We
Page 31 and 32: State of California - Health and We
Page 33 and 34: MENTAL STATUS Exam a. Appearance. D
Page 35: WARNING SIGNS OF SUICIDAL PERSON Ci
Page 39 and 40: San Francisco Police Department 6.0
Page 41 and 42: CBHS Policies and Procedures SERVIC
Page 43 and 44: DO NOT COPY REPORT OF WARNING DO NO
Page 45 and 46: Policy/Procedure #3.01-2: MT transp
Page 47 and 48: Policy/Procedure #3.01-2: MT transp
Page 49 and 50: 3. PROCEDURES B. ASSISTANCE TO OUTS
Page 51 and 52: 2. OTHER MEDICAL FACILITIES. When a
Page 53 and 54: Video Scenarios Introduction Correc
Page 55 and 56: DEPRESSION AND SUICIDE IN THE OLDER
Page 57 and 58: 1. Discussion on whether or not cli
Page 59: The case manger is hoping to avoid

5150 Involuntary Detention Training Manual - San Francisco ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?